What will the Supreme Court be ruling on in March 2012. Recently, the US Supreme Court set its schedule for 2012 and they agreed to hear five-and-one-half hours of oral arguments regarding the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and affordable Care Act (PPACA). The defendant in this case is the federal government and in essence the current administration. The plaintiffs are the various states who have challenged the Constitutionality of the PPACA. The attorneys for the plaintiffs have raised the concern as to whether or not the PPACA follows the rules of the US Constitution.
Here are four questions asked by the lower court challenges, and the Supreme Court Justices have agreed to hear arguments regarding these four questions:
1. Individual Mandate. The question specifically is whether or not Congress went too far in requiring (mandating) all Americans to purchase and maintain individual health insurance. The answer to this question lies within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and therefore, this is why the question to constitutionality of the PPACA is even being raised in the first place. Never before has Congress mandated the purchase of anything. The government has required participation in such things as Social Security and federal income taxes. But, to require every American to go out and purchase any goods or services has never been done before. This is brand new territory, for a free country.
2. Severability. Generally, within pieces of legislation there is a severability clause included in the specific wording of the law. What this means is language which describes the right to remove a line or a portion of a bill, without changing the remainder of the bill, is included in most legislation, known as the Severability Clause. Apparently, in their haste to get the PPACA through Congress, the severability clause was not included in the specific wording of the bill. One might think of this as parallel or equivalent to the line item veto power of the President. The problem this causes for the defense is that if any single portion of the PPACA is determined unconstitutional (then this part cannot be removed and the rest of the bill enforced. Instead, if any portion of the PPACA is determined unconstitutional, in absence of a Severability Clause, the remainder of the legislation would be deemed invalid.)
3. Anti-Injunction Act. This particular rule says that private individuals are barred from challenging the constitutionality or legality of taxes until after a tax is collected. In other words, Congress has the authority to raise any and all taxes that they choose, and we, as US citizens, are barred from questioning the legality of the tax, until after the tax has been collected. At that point, we have the right to question the tax. The question here is whether or not requiring an individual to purchase health insurance is actually the same as Congress requiring a health insurance tax. And if this mandate falls under the rules of taxes, we are barred, legally, from questioning this. This sounds like a monarchy to me, not a republic. Do most Americans realize the power of Congress? How did they acquire such power?
4. Medicaid. Included in the PPACA is a significant expansion of our existing Medicaid system. The Medicaid system was designed as a state system that is largely funded by federal dollars. The idea was that each state had the authority and autonomy to make its own decisions with regard to its own lower income citizens. When Congress expanded the Medicaid ranks, they crossed from a federal matter to a state matter. The question is raised whether or not they overstepped their authority. Should Congress be allowed to usurp the authority of each individual state? If this is allowed, what other matters will the federal government decide to require certain states to do? Will the few states that have no state income tax be required to begin collecting taxes from its state citizens? Will Congress decide they have the right to set the amount of state income taxes? Any time Congress over steps it’s authority, it causes a potential cascade effect.